vvs/sim-numerics
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
105 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags
main
Commit Graph
3 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
vvsandClaude Opus 5 2c458c51dc Fix: _local_order divided by fp*fp that underflows to 0 for a tiny nonzero slope (ZeroDivisionError, caught by the sweep harness and charged as a failure - this is what had moved Table 6's order cells after the sign fix). Pinned by a test that fails on the old code. Every sweep file regenerated on the server (run_all_sweeps.sh). verify_article: skip result files that are not grid lists (it crashed on the out-of-sample dicts). Verifier now completes: 224 OK, 57 stale numbers in the paper to update (Table 6 again 7 of 7). 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-21 20:34:19 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 68df1d25db Sign tests by product underflowed: FIXED everywhere (branch, not master - the paper is not yet updated). FA * fnew < 0.0 with FA ~ -1e-200, fnew ~ 1e-150 is -0.0 and '-0.0 < 0.0' is False, so on flat functions (x^19) the bracket update moved the wrong end, the root left the bracket and the run still reported convergence - the proposed rule returned 4.9e-9, bisection 3.5e-9, ITP 1.6e-8 with a claimed 1e-12 bracket; the 1e-6 harness scored them solved. Same defect in our bisection, false-position family, Ridders, Brent, ITP and twelve copies in stage scripts, simroot/sim.py and one test; all replaced by _opposite / _same_sign, pinned by test_sign_underflow. 
Impact, every sweep regenerated: the paper's key configurations are unchanged to the evaluation (proposed 2806/3220, credit 3568/3020, Chandrupatla, TOMS 748, Brent, bisection); 46 stated numbers move (ITP CHA 2857 -> 2896, ITP oracle 2611 -> 2647, record CHA figures by 14-18, the grid means by ~1%) and one finding weakens: the measured-order exponent of section 7.1 was cheaper in 29 of 60 far cells and 7 of 7 safeguards; with the fix 12 of 61 and 6 of 7, and on the wide-bracket set it now loses in every safeguard and drops 5 problems.

PREREG G1-G3 outcome on the fixed code: G2 (repeating step pattern, period from the data) PASSES Y1-Y4 and is ACCEPTED by the stop rule - proposed rule APS 2806 -> 2782 (below Chandrupatla's 2787), CHA 3220 -> 3169, both 6026 -> 5951, per problem vs Chandrupatla on APS 95/20/38 p = 8e-7. G1 fails Y1/Y2 (its Y3 miss was the sign bug), G3 fails Y2, A fails Y2. Regression 887 pass; the two red tests are the paper-number check (awaiting the paper update) and test_blend (fixed since, copy in stage16).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-21 12:49:01 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 e4769be9a3 slope-stability gate: the PROJECT'S OWN target is met for the first time — 5922 < 6026 over both sets at 193/199 with the guarantee intact (slope.ratio.derived3.project: APS 2848 + CHA 3074), CHA improves 4516 -> 2903 (x1.56), repairs 77.5% -> 55.3%. Honest cost: APS 2806 -> 2848, which moves us from 1st to 3rd on the canonical set (chandrupatla 2785, toms748 2820), so my stricter S1 fails while the project target passes — a positioning decision, recorded not resolved. Refusal CURRENCY is what decides: bracket progress 4449 vs model shape 2848, a 1601-evaluation difference for the same 'refuse before the step' idea 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-20 23:27:43 +01:00